Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  October 10, 2019

 

The referenced application and Preliminary Amendment dated 08/14/2019 have been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SEARCH RESULTS

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no similar registered marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  However, marks in prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

·         Advisory: Prior-Filed Application

·         Preliminary Amendment Improperly Signed

·         Identification of Services Amendment Required

·         1(a) Filing Basis Requirements

·         Mark Description and Color Claim Amendment Required

·         Entity Clarification Required

 

ADVISORY: PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION

 

The effective filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 79254744 and 88608328 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT IMPROPERLY SIGNED

 

Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on 08/14/2019 that appears to have been signed by a person with no legal authority to bind or represent applicant.  The USPTO cannot accept a response signed by an improper party; therefore, the contents will not be reviewed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.62(b); TMEP §718.03.

 

Specifically, since the current owner is listed as an individual, the amendment must be signed by the individual applicant or applicant’s attorney. Even if the owner name is clarified to be a corporation as explained in the entity clarification requirement below, the position of the signatory is listed as “business development manager” which is typically not a position with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant. See TMEP §611.06(d) and §611.03(b).

 

Resubmit a properly signed amendment or provide an explanation.  Applicant may either (1) resubmit the entire amendment signed by a proper party, or (2) provide an explanation of the signer’s legal authority to bind or represent applicant.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(b)(2), 2.61(b), 2.62(b).  See below for information about who can sign a response. 

 

Who can sign the response:

 

Applicant does not have an attorney.  The response must be signed by (1) the individual applicant, (2) someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer of a corporation, or a general partner of a partnership), or (3) all joint applicants.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.06(a)-(h), 712.01. 

 

Applicant has an attorney.  The attorney must sign the response.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i); TMEP §712.01.  The only attorneys who may sign responses are (1) attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state or territory, and (2) Canadian trademark attorneys or agents reciprocally recognized by the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED).  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 11.14(a), (c), (e); TMEP §602.

 

Amendments and responses to Office actions must be properly signed.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2); TMEP §§712, 712.01.  If an applicant is not represented by a U.S. licensed attorney authorized to practice before the USPTO, the response must be signed by the individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06(b)-(h), 712.01.  In the case of joint applicants, all must sign.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §611.06(a).  If an applicant is represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney authorized to practice before the USPTO, the attorney must sign the response.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01. 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

Even if the application had been properly signed, the proposed amendment to the identification in the preliminary amendment dated 08/14/2019 is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the identification in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Applicant’s services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the original identification in the application, and any previously accepted amendments, remain operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.07(d).

 

In this case, the application originally identified the services as follows:  “Advanced product research in the field of artificial intelligence; Application service provider (ASP) featuring e-commerce software for use as a payment gateway that authorizes processing of credit cards or direct payments for merchants.”

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the following services:  “Developing Computer Software.” 

 

This proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because applicant’s original identification does not include developing computer software nor do any of the services encompass developing software. Therefore, the proposed amendment cannot be accepted.

 

The original identification below remains operative:

 

IC 042: Advanced product research in the field of artificial intelligence; Application service provider (ASP) featuring e-commerce software for use as a payment gateway that authorizes processing of credit cards or direct payments for merchants

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to broaden or expand the services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

1(a) FILING BASIS REQUIREMENTS

 

Registration is refused because applicant did not provide a specimen, dates of use, or a signed declaration for the services in International Class 042. To submit an application based on use of the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), an applicant must provide the following:  (1) a statement that “the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the application filing date;” (2) dates of first use of the mark; (3) a specimen for each class and a statement that “the specimen(s) was in use in commerce at least as early as the application filing date;” and (4) verification, in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, of these two statements and the dates of first use.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1); TMEP §§903, 904.

 

For more information about Section 1(a) basis requirements, and instructions on how to satisfy them online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Basis webpage.

 

SPECIMEN REQUIRED

 

Registration is refused because the application does not include the required specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce in International Class 042.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i).  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services.  TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)        Submit a verified specimen that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application.  A “verified specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  The specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)        Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.

 

MARK DESCRIPTION AND COLOR CLAIM AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

Applicant must amend the color claim and description to identify all the colors in the drawing of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  The following colors have been omitted from the color claim:  black.  In addition, the following colors have been omitted from the description:  black.

 

A complete color claim must reference all the colors appearing in the drawing of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  Similarly, a complete description of a mark depicted in color must specify where the colors appear in the literal and design elements of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

Additionally, the mark description is inaccurate because it describes the background as being blue, however, the background in the mark drawing is black. Furthermore, the mark description contains extraneous information such as font style and size. This information is unnecessary and should be removed from the mark description. Lastly, generic color names must be used to describe the colors in a color claim and description, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). Thus, applicant’s specific shades of each color in the color claim and mark description should be amended to reflect the generic names of the colors.

 

The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:

 

Color claim:  “The colors blue, green, white and black are claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Description:  The mark consists of the stylized white wording “REALITYENGINES.AI” below a stylized design of a cube consisting of multiple white lines that are not connected and multiple dots in blue and green all on a black rectangular background.

 

ENTITY CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

The name of an individual person appears in the section of the application intended for the trademark owner’s name; however, the legal entity is set forth as a corporation.  Applicant must clarify this inconsistency.  TMEP §803.02(a); see 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(2), (a)(3)(i)-(ii), 2.61(b). Specifically, the name in the “owner of the mark” field appears as “Reddy, Bindu” but the legal entity is set forth as a corporation. The entity field must match the name in the owner of the mark field and not the DBA field.

 

If applicant is an individual, applicant must request that the legal entity be amended to “individual” and must indicate his or her country of citizenship.  See TMEP §803.03(a).  Alternatively, if applicant is a corporation, applicant must provide the legal name of the corporation and U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization.  See TMEP §803.03(c).

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b).  An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the requirements in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

Rebecca Coughlan

/Rebecca D. Coughlan/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

Phone: 571-272-4975

Email: rebecca.coughlan@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on October 10, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88520098

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

Rebecca Coughlan

/Rebecca D. Coughlan/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

Phone: 571-272-4975

Email: rebecca.coughlan@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from October 10, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”